Sometimes a Republican candidate's position on abortion is loud and clear.
Sometimes it isn't.
Democrats organize an event to try to get GOP candidates to say where they stand on abortion.
Scott Hays' Guest Post is a report on the effort of Democrats in Clackamas County, Oregon to force Republican candidates to report their positions on reproductive health care rights. Clackamas County is Oregon's third most populous county, with about 420,000 people. It includes the close-in suburbs south and east of Portland, plus farm and forested area to their east.
 |
| Hays |
Guest Post by Scott Hays
Our resolution began as a campaign strategy to use in our Clackamas County Commissioner races. We have two Republicans running for two seats and neither has been forthcoming about their position on this issue. For good reason. Both are pro-life (one more radical than the other) and the issue is not a winner with most voters in Clackamas. We hoped to present a resolution in favor of reproductive rights to the County Commission, fully expecting the 3 Republicans to ignore it--whereupon we would launch a letter-writing and public comment campaign demanding to know why they were keeping it secret.
Some of our membership had concerns about the narrowness of the resolution, so we broadened it and wrote to all local jurisdictions in the county. This created a new problem. Taking it directly to each city council in the county would be difficult for the media to cover. We finally opted to do a media event promoting our resolution. We also wanted to spotlight local candidates in very close races, expecting support for the issue to cross party lines.
On Friday, October 14, we gathered ten elected Democratic officials and candidates. The speakers included Jamie McLeod-Skinner – the Democratic candidate for congress whose race has garnered nationwide attention. (She unseated a conservative Democratic incumbent in the primary and is now attempting to keep this a Democratic seat.) Also speaking were Mark Meek, Sonya Fischer, and Libra Forde – candidates for state and county offices – plus representatives of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Oregon, Pro-Choice Oregon, and the Portland Chapter of NOW.The speakers asserted that access to abortion and reproductive health care was a fundamental right that should be made by individuals and their health care providers, not politicians. The speakers said that abortion rights are no longer "settled law" in Oregon or nationally – the position of the GOP candidate for governor, who is attempting to sweep the issue under the rug. State Representative Rachel Prusak said, “the same people saying Oregon laws are strong and we don’t have to worry also said we shouldn’t worry that Roe would be overturned.” This is why Clackamas County Democrats say there is urgency to know where local GOP candidates stand. If they win office and are part of GOP majorities, they will be under tremendous pressure to pass extreme laws.
Both KOIN-TV and the Pamplin Media sent reporters, but neither have reported on the event. We are undaunted. We are going to post it on our Party Website and FB page and push it through other avenues of social media. Our resolution puts Democrats of Clackamas County on record in support of measures "necessary to protect a person’s right to abortion and reproductive health care services, and a person’s right to privacy in Oregon." It also sets a standard against which to compare Republicans who refuse to be transparent and forthright about their plans. We are being transparent. We want Republicans to be transparent, too.
As Libra Forde so eloquently pointed out in her presentation, "It is high time we all get together and build a legacy that we can all be proud of. In the future, when this history is told, we have to make sure we are on the right side of history."
[Note: To get daily home delivery of this blog go to https://petersage.substack.com Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]
10 comments:
I for one think this direct, issue-based approach is sound. The people have a right to know. Let's couple it with demands for policy clarity (beyond "a broken system") from Democratic candidates on immigration and border security.
Mr. Hayes:
While you’re trying to nail down the candidates, you might also ask them to clarify their position on democracy itself. As we know too well, most Republicans oppose it and instead favor Trump’s attempted coup. Considering the party’s complicity, just being Republican makes them a party to treason. Some say that’s painting with too wide a brush, but people are known by the company they keep. Here’s a straightforward multiple-guess question for them:
Those who believe the 2020 election was stolen are…
1. Ignorant
2. Stupid
3. Crazy
4. All of the above
Republicans in Congress have been blocking comprehensive immigration reform for years. Just ask George W. Bush, who tried and who gave a major, televised speech about it. (I think it was in primetime.)
Republicans don't want comprehensive Immigration reform because they take great pleasure in using it as a political football and wedge issue. It gets the racist Republican base all hot and bothered and fired up. This is not news.
A wall...not paid for by Mexico...is not comprehensive immigration reform.
Time to review the history on this issue.
Thanks, Mike. I agree. While speaking with Republican candidates (or speaking with supporters of Republican candidates), it is always a good idea to challenge them on their views on democracy. However, in this particular instance we chose to keep it simple. One issue ... especially one that resonates with 75-85% of the population. We took a slightly different tack with a second resolution aimed at local jurisdictions -- that one on climate change -- but the purpose was the same. Put it out there for the public to see and then try to keep it bubbling up in the news.
The problem is, most voters do not approach politics in an intellectual manner. They approach it in a gut-level, emotional way.
Bill Clinton wins the presidency because he “feels your pain.“ Barack Obama wins the presidency with meaningless rhetoric targeting idealistic voters about how “We are the people we’ve been waiting for.“ You can almost see neural activity monitors flatline when politicians talk in detail about policy.
A smart political analyst once said that to see a politician’s true message, watch them give a speech on TV with the sound turned off. Trump looks like an angry barking dog. Biden is either completely blank or pleading. Harris looks scared.
Why does Hays refer to "pro life"?
These people are trying to take away women's health care choices.
Hays and anyone who refers to this as being about "life" needs to be corrected.
Cruel, harmful, racist and traumatizing policies that separate children from parents also is not comprehensive immigration reform.
Mr. Trigoboff makes a good point about politics being approached in a gut-level, emotional way. That seems to be especially true of Republicans. For example, President Bush once said: “I'm a gut player. I rely on my instincts." How reliable were they? Here’s what he famously said about Putin: "I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country."
President Obama, a Constitutional law professor, may have been too cerebral. A lot of people are intimidated by African Americans smarter than they are, so they rallied behind the racist calling him a Kenyan Muslim.
Trump followed his gut, bragging that “my gut tells me more sometimes than anybody else’s brain can tell me.” As a result, he groveled before Putin in Helsinki and “fell in love” with Kim Jong-un. Now he has the some in the country blabbering about another civil war. Maybe it’s time to get rational.
Anon @ 10:29:
No argument on Republican perfidy and bad faith on the subject of immigration and border. That's really old news!
My wish was (still is) to hold good and decent and sophisticated Democrats to specific positions and policies.
In what way(s) do Democrats veer from open borders? What cadres of migrants, if any, would they stop and deport?
Or rather, in what way(s) would "comprehensive immigration reform" not equal amnesty, and economic woes as asylum?
As with election denial and abortion the other direction, specifics please, not avoidant, overbroad platitudes.
Like Mr. Hays: let's know where our candidates stand!
Most voters across the entire political spectrum approach voting in a gut-level, emotional way. It’s important to understand that if you want to comprehend how politics actually works, instead of how some theory you like predicts it will work.
Twisting this insight into yet another partisan weapon like Mike just did misses the non-partisan point I was making.
Post a Comment